5 Modalists Proof Texts Refuted

Modalism is the heretical view that God, unlike on
Trinitarianism, is not 3 persons in 1 divine essence, but is instead 1 person
in 1 divine essence, and this 1 person goes through different “modes” (hence
the name “modalism”). For example, water can exist in 3 different states;
liquid, solid, and ice. These are just different states that the water goes
into, but it’s still only 1 substance. I can be a father, a son, and a husband,
but I’m not 3 distinct persons, these are just different roles that I fulfill.
In the same way, the modalist will say, The Father, The Son, and The Holy
Spirit are really all 1 person, but “Father”, “Fon” and “Holy Spirit” are the
names of the different roles God plays. They will use various scriptures to
support their view, but these scriptures are misinterpreted, and in this blog
post, I will explain why.

1: “I and The Father are
one.” – John 10:30

Modalists often appeal to John 10:30 to support their view.
In this passage, Jesus says that He and The Father are one. So they’ll say
“See! Jesus says they’re one! They’re one and the same! They’re not two,
they’re one!”

John 10:30 is an excellent scriptural passage proving that
Jesus is God, but it’s not an excellent scriptural passage if you’re trying to
prove that Jesus and The Father are the same person. The Greek word for “one”
in this passage means “one in nature” or “one in essence”. But the Trinitarian
believes this about Jesus and The Father! Because Jesus and The Father are both
God, they are therefore of the same essence. That’s what the Trinity teaches;
that there is only one God who exists as 3 distinct persons. The persons of the
Trinity are distinct in their personhood, yet all share the same divine
essence.

Jesus is clearly claiming to be God here. In fact, in the
following verses, the Jews pick up stones to stone him. Jesus says “I have
shown you many great miracles from The Father. For which of these do you stone
me?” The Jews responded “We are not stoning you for any of these, but
for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” (John 10:31-33).
They knew what Jesus was claiming. So yeah, this is excellent scriptural
evidence that Jesus claimed to be God, but as I point out above, Trinitarians
believe that The Father and The Son are one in essence. We just don’t believe
they’re the same person. If that sounds like incoherent nonsense to you, check
out my blog posts “Does The Bible Teach That God Is A Trinity” and “Is Believing In The Trinity Irrational?”

Modalists often use Deuteronomy 6:4 to argue that
Trinitarian theology is false. The point they make is that since this verse
says “The Lord is one” that obviously is incompatible with the view that
“God is three” i.e that God is a trinity. They’ll say “See, God can’t be a
Trinity because Deuteronomy 6:4 says that The Lord is one. He can’t be 3
persons and 1 person at the same time!” The problem with this argument is that
it misunderstands the doctrine of The Trinity. We are not saying that there are
3 Gods. That would be polytheism. Rather, we are saying that there is 1 God and
that this 1 God eternally exists as 3 persons. This is entirely compatible with
the shema quoted above. The shema is a statement of monotheism. Trinitarianism
is monotheistic. We don’t believe in 3 Gods. We believe in 1 God.

In fact, as I argue in “Does The Bible Teach That God Is A Trinity”, the doctrine of The Trinity is inferred from 5 teachings of The
Bible. (1) There is only one God. (2) The Father is God. (3) Jesus is God. (4)
The Holy Spirit is God. (5) The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct
persons. The doctrine of The Trinity is inferred from these 5 biblical facts. In
fact, in that article, I appeal to Deuteronomy 6:4 to support that first point;
there is only one God. There is no other.

Notice also that it’s only on point number 5 where
Trinitarians and Modalists differ. We both affirm monotheism and we both affirm
the deity of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. Where we disagree is on
whether these three persons really are three persons or whether they’re merely
3 different modes that 1 person goes through.

3: “If you’ve seen me,
you’ve seen The Father.” – John 14:9

John 14 is part of John’s account of The Last Supper. Jesus
has just told his disciples that He will soon be going back to His Father in
Heaven, and He tells them that they know the place where He is going. Thomas
says to Him “Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the
way” to which Jesus responds “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No
one comes to The Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would
know my Father as well. From now on, you do know Him and have seen Him.” Then
Phillip says to Jesus “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for
us.” To which Jesus responds “Don’t you know me, Phillip, even after I
have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen The
Father. How can you say ‘show us The Father’?” (John 14:1-9).

The modalist argues that Jesus is affirming that He is God
The Father in this passage. Philip asks Jesus to show them The Father. Jesus
says “don’t you know me? Anyone who has seen me has seen The Father”. The
Modalist argues that Jesus is essentially saying He doesn’t need to show them
the Father because He is The Father.

I don’t think Jesus is saying this at all. The main reason
is because the biblical evidence for the distinct personhood of The Father and
The Son is very, very powerful. In fact, many scriptures that argue for the
distinct personhood for The Father, and The Son are found in John’s gospel; the
very gospel this modalist prooftext is taken from! Now, I won’t go into all of
those scriptures here for the sake of brevity, so I’ll just redirect you to my
blog post “Does The Bible Teach That God Is A Trinity.” But there are many
passages in John’s gospel alone that make no sense unless The Father and The
Son are distinct persons. A basic principle in biblical hermenutics is to
interpret the unclear passages of scripture in light of the clear. If The Bible
makes an overwhelming case for the distinct personhood of The Father and The
Son in many other places in scripture (and it does), then we should prefer an
interpretation of John 14:9 that jives with Trinitarianism rather than having
to reinterpret all of the distinction passages to fit the modalist
interpretation of John 14:9.

Here’s what Jesus most likely means when He says “If
you’ve seen me, you’ve seen The Father”. I think Jesus is saying here that
since He and The Father are the same Being, then if you’ve gotten to know one
person of the Trinity, it’s as though you’ve gotten to know all three of them.
After all, since they’re all the same Being, they would all have the same
personality traits and the same properties (e.g omnipotence, omniscience, etc).
Jesus is saying to Phillip that He already knows what The Father is like since
he knows what Jesus is like. They’ve spent 3 years traveling with Jesus. They
know that He’s kind, loving, forgiving, compassionate, hates evil, gets angry
at sin, and so on, They’ve observed His behavior for 3 years. Therefore, if The
Father became incarnate instead of the Son, they wouldn’t be seeing anything
different. If The Father became incarnate, He would behave exactly as Jesus
does. You would observe the same personality traits in the ((hypothetically))
incarnate Father as you do in the incarnate Son.

Jesus is a gateway into what The Father and Holy Spirit are
like. As Colossians says “He is the visible image of the invisible God…” (Colossians
1:15). Whatever Jesus laughs at, The Father laughs at. Whatever Jesus weeps
over, The Father weeps over. If you spend 3 years with Jesus and make a list of
his personality traits, The Father has those same personality traits.
Therefore, if you’ve seen Jesus, you’ve essentially seen The Father.

This is a more likely interpretation in light of the
overabundance of scriptures affirming their distinct personhood.

4: “Isaiah 9:6 says Jesus
Is The Everlasting Father”

Isaiah 9:6 is another Bible verse Modalists like to use to
try to justify their position. In the book of Isaiah, the prophet Isaiah
prophesied about the coming Messiah. In chapter 9 verse 6, Isaiah wrote “For
to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his
shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting
Father, Prince of Peace.” So the Messiah who was to come would be a
wonderful counselor, according to Isaiah. He would also be the “Mighty God”
in human flesh (i.e The Messiah would be God Himself) and he would be the “Prince
Of Peace”. So what’s the problem supposed to be? Trinitarians believe these
things. Trinitarians believe that Jesus is God, He also brings comfort and
peace to those who know Him. The point the Modalists are trying to make is that
Isaiah says he’s the “Everlasting Father”. On Modalism, they argue, this
makes perfect sense since God is only one person and The Father, The Son, and
The Holy Spirit are just modes He goes through. On Modalism, Jesus is God The
Father, so Isaiah’s description of him seems appropriate.

But then, if The Bible overwhelmingly testifies against
Modalism elsewhere then why does Isaiah call him “Everlasting Father”?

This is not the case at all. "Eternal Father"
(Avi Ad in Hebrew) simply is a term of authority here. The whole subject of
Isaiah 9:6 and Isaiah 9:7 that follows right after it is about authority.
Making references to the "government""counselor""Father" and "Prince." is simply to say that
the messiah would be the ruler of the world. The term "father" is
also used in Isaiah 22:21. In this verse of The Bible, Isaiah speaks of
Eliakim; “I will commit thy government into his hand; and he shall be a
father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem,
and to the house of Judah.”
We see the term "father" here is just an authority figure.

This verse could also be interpreted as saying that Jesus is
the father of creation. After all John 1, Hebrews 1, and Colossians 1 do tell
us that Jesus is the Creator of the universe. It is not uncommon even in more
modern times to refer to creators of something (be it a country, a scientific
discipline, or what have you) as “fathers”. Take the “founding fathers” of The
United States Of America as an example. Since Jesus “laid the foundations of
the earth” (Hebrews 1: 10) it
wouldn’t be unusual to call him the “Founding Father” of the universe.

But I think it’s more likely that “father” is being used as
an authoritative term, a term to describe Jesus as the ruler of the world. The
“everlasting” part is because as Daniel 7 says, his reign will never end.

5: Matthew 28:19 cross
referenced with Acts 2:38

Often times Modalists argue that Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38 proves that Jesus is The Father, Son
& Holy Spirit, and that there is no distinction of persons in the godhead.
Matthew 28:19 says that we should baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They
argue that this was fulfilled in Acts 2:38, which says that Peter baptized in
the name of Jesus. What this means, they argue, is that the name of the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Spirit is Jesus. Father, Son, and Spirit are mere titles
or roles that Jesus has or plays, but the name of The Father, Son and Holy
Spirit is Jesus.

What are Trinitarians to make of this passage? In his blog
post“What Is Wrong With The Oneness View Of God”, Richard Bushey
addresses this argument thusly: “This will raise the question of why Peter
and the apostles baptized in the name of Jesus. It should be noted that the
phrase ‘in the name of,’ is an idiom for power and authority. When the apostles
were on trial, the Jewish court asked them,’by what power, or in what name do
you do this?’ (Acts 4:7). If you act in somebody’s name, you are acting under
their authority. It is something like an executioner acting in the name of the
king. We might pull our cars over for a police officer in the name of the
law. This is an idiom for power and authority that Jesus used. So when he
told his disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Spirit, he was telling them to baptize under their authority and power. He was
not establishing a baptismal formula. Hence, there is just no contradiction
when Peter baptizes in the name of Jesus because it is the same authority. What
is wrong with the oneness view of God? It is based upon a misunderstanding of
Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38.”

We should not be surprised that baptizing a person in the
name of only person of the Trinity carries the same weight as baptizing them in
the name of another, or all 3. After all, all 3 persons of the Trinity are
equally God. They have the same authority, the same power, the same omni
attributes, the same loving and forgiving nature. The 3 persons of the Trinity
are all equal.